Marianna in ConfirmationBiasLand

I'm interested in why people believe odd things (and ignore the science), so I thought I'd give the podcast Marianna in ConspiracyLand a try. This is the work of Marianna Spring, the BBC's 'disinformation and social media correspondent', who has the cringe-making habit of referring to herself as 'A.K.A. Miss Information.'

The first series follows the rise in support for conspiracy theories in the West Country town of Totnes, boosted by a conspiracy-spreading newspaper called The Light. Despite a certain naivety in the interviewing, I found the series interesting for two reasons. The obvious one is the nature and danger of conspiracy theories, particularly around subjects like vaccination and climate change. I'm always looking for ways to get scientific views across and (as demonstrated so well in the book I recently reviewed, Science with Impact), it can be really hard to get past conspiracy viewpoints. When someone can claim, as they do in one of Marianna's interviews, that there is no evidence for the effectiveness of Covid vaccines you really have to wonder how to get through to someone like this. The series portrays well the response of conspiracy theorists to questioning their beliefs and the dangers that arise from the spread of these theories.

But the other interesting aspect was the way that Marianna herself displayed confirmation bias. (I must admit to being particularly on the lookout for this having just read Alex Edmans' May Contain Lies.) Her assumption was clearly that conspiracy theories were right wing affairs and was struggling to understand why the people of Totnes should be particularly susceptible, given that many of them apparently have a hippy-dippy new age viewpoint, which gives off more left wing vibes (man).

For me, it seems obvious that this would be an ideal breeding ground for conspiracy theories because these are people who already have a tendency to soak up misinformation and disinformation on the likes of alternative medicine, crystals and goodness knows what. The show's text description even says 'The small town of Totnes in Devon is known for its warmth and open-mindedness, gong baths and healing crystals', hardly a recipe for rationality. But Marianna's confirmation bias doesn't allow her to see the evidence - she can't resist the model that such conspiracies should come from the socially conservative right wing.

At one point she is talking about the content of The Light and says 'It's a mixture of wellness-type articles: "How to detox naturally" and "Pioneers of frequency medicine" which Peter [local paper editor] says go down well with some locals. But its content feature a lot of disinformation.' She seems entirely oblivious to the reality that these 'wellness-type articles', used as a contrast to the bad material, are potentially dangerous themselves: at best misinformation and sometimes definitely disinformation.

Until presenters of this kind of programme can be more aware of their own biases it's arguable that all they do is act as freak shows - 'Look at these nasty people!' - if the programme makers want to encourage listeners to have a more rational, evidence-driven view of the world, they need to employ a little more self-reflection.

You can hear Marianna in Conspiracyland on BBC Sounds or wherever you get your podcasts.

Image from BBC: fair usage

These articles will always be free - but if you'd like to support my online work, consider buying a virtual coffee or taking out a membership:

See all Brian's online articles or subscribe to a weekly email free here

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog